PP(-3f?TIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTEE The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

 STr'3TEML=NT "1 . ThL Aqreement was violated when the Carrier -
 Cl,h-. CLAIN arbitrarily dismissed Trackman A.L. Sanchez
 ors Septomber 28, 1985 on the basis of unproven
 charges, said action beinq capricious, unwar
 ranted and unduly harsh.
 ._. As a result of the aforesaid violation, the
 Carrier shall. now be required to reinstate
 Trmckman Sanchez to hi=- former position with
 seiiioraty· and all other rights restored, with
 compensation for all time lost."

 F 11110 1 NGS

Upor, the, whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaninq of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the pi.rt.ies and the sub)ect matter. -


'The record indicates that on August 9, 1985 Claimant was working
 a fracl::man with a section clang near Raton, New Mexico. On that
 date, Claimant alleqes that while in the process of lining track,
 he felt a sharp pain in his lower back. Claimant maintains that
 upon completion of the day he reported the matter to his Foreman,
 that he hid a pain in his back and perhaps had experienced an on
 duty injury. He maintains that his Foreman paid no attention to
 his statement.. Subsequently, the Claimant worked the entire

followinq week, including strenuous labor, and finally, in the late eveninu of AUqust .19th, he contacted his Foreman and fold him he would not be able to report for his regular assignment on Auqust 20th. On August 20th, Claimant informed the Roadmaster and Track Supervisor that he was qoinq to have to seek medical att.L-ntion. On that same day, he filed an accident report. On Auqust 21st, Claimant went to seek medical attention toqether with the Roadmasi_er and Track Supervisor. Subsequently, after further medical attention, the doctor prescribed complete and Lotal rest. for the Claimant. On September 6th, Carrier notified the Claimant of the time and place of investigation. charging him with falsification of a personal injury report and late filing of such report.


Petitioner alleges that Carrier has attempted to discredit (:1'=infant's claim of an on duty injury which rendered him incapaci.l.aLe·d for further meaningful employment. It is also maintained by F'etititioner that Claimant received no attention until lie laid off work and insisted upon medical attention. In short. Retitloner- insists that Carrier has not borne its burden of proof and that there was no guilt by Claimant in this situation.


(::arrier rrtaintaii,s that Claimant. Sanchez alleqed an on duty injury orr August 9th, but failed to report the injury until AuquSt 20th, some 11 cl-.ys later. Furthermore his Foreman was not notified of



any such injury or possibility of any such injury on August 9th as claimed by Mr. Sanchez. Carrier claims that there was no justification for Claimant's failure to report the injury and that he was guilty of making false statements regarding such personal injury. Carrier also relies on the fact that CLKZ-imsant worked the entire week following the injury without complaint and furthermore, as witnesses testified to, he performed a number of strenuous tasks during that week.

 The Board notes that situations such as that involved herein have occurred on many occasions in the past. As the Third Division tated in its !`,ward No. 19298:

 "It is of the greatest importance for the employer to know of any injur=y, whether real, suspected, or imaginary, that has happened to any of its employees while on duty. An employee may not invoke his own judgement of whatconstitutes a reportable injury. He must- report all of them, according to the rules, whether real, suspected or imaginary. The Claimant was dilatory in reporting an injury." There have been many other Awards, including several on this property, dealing with the same subject. It is obvious that from The Carrier's standpoint, as has been supported by many tribunals such- as this, it is vital that an employee obey the rules and report an injury prior to the end of the shift or tour of duty on which the alleqed injury took place. In this .instance, not only was there- an 11 day hiatus, but other employees testified that

they were not aware of any injury suffered by Claimant on the day in question, nor was there any apparent impairment in his activities during the week following the injury. As the Board views it, Carrier has sustained its burden of proof in establish.inq that Claimant falsified a-report and the charges were properly sustained. The Claim must be denied.


AWARD

        mon . _ ___._ __._ ___ _ (~! -2

C~. C. F. Foose,
 Carrier Member Employee Member

 Chicaqo. Illinois
 March,3y . 1908